‘Slam Dunks’ Belong in Basketball, Not Intelligence-Gathering on Syria

Thanks to one of America’s great intelligence debacles, this is a phrase that deserves to go away. At least as far as military operations are concerned.

Miami Heat forward LeBron James does some LeBron James stuff, Thursday, June 7, 2012, in Boston.
National Journal
Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Aug. 29, 2013, 5:10 a.m.

Some­times, sports meta­phors have ab­so­lutely no use. Thanks to some ig­noble his­tory with Ir­aq, this is firmly the case with call­ing in­tel­li­gence a “slam dunk.”

There’s a big story out from the As­so­ci­ated Press Thursday morn­ing that cites mul­tiple U.S. of­fi­cials say­ing that the in­tel­li­gence ty­ing Bashar al-As­sad’s re­gime to the re­cent al­leged chem­ic­al weapons at­tacks in Syr­ia is “not a slam dunk.” The story re­futes, through an­onym­ous sources at least, Pres­id­ent Obama’s claim on PBS Wed­nes­day night that his ad­min­is­tra­tion has “con­cluded that the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment in fact car­ried these [chem­ic­al at­tacks] out.”

And there’s more from the AP on just what the U.S. doesn’t know:

In­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials say they could not pin­point the ex­act loc­a­tions of As­sad’s sup­plies of chem­ic­al weapons, and As­sad could have moved them in re­cent days as U.S. rhet­or­ic builds. That lack of cer­tainty means a pos­sible series of U.S. cruise-mis­sile strikes aimed at crip­pling As­sad’s mil­it­ary in­fra­struc­ture could hit newly hid­den sup­plies of chem­ic­al weapons, ac­ci­dent­ally trig­ger­ing a deadly chem­ic­al at­tack.

Which sounds like a de­light. The AP also says that a “quest for ad­ded in­tel­li­gence to bol­ster the White House’s case for a strike” is the reas­on that an in­tel­li­gence re­port has not yet been re­leased pub­licly.

The thing is, though, no amount of in­tel­li­gence is ever really a “slam dunk.” That’s be­cause a “slam dunk” be­longs in pro­fes­sion­al bas­ket­ball, not in in­tel­li­gence-gath­er­ing par­lance. Be­cause, some­times, when it shows up there, very bad things hap­pen.

Take former CIA Dir­ect­or George Ten­et. In Decem­ber 2002, as the ad­min­is­tra­tion of George W. Bush was look­ing in­to a pos­sible at­tack on Ir­aq, Ten­et told the pres­id­ent that “it’s a slam dunk case” that Sad­dam Hus­sein had weapons of mass de­struc­tion. The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Bob Wood­ward said that, in an in­ter­view with the pres­id­ent, Bush told him that ” ‘slam dunk’ is, as I in­ter­preted it, a sure thing, guar­an­teed.” Ten­et, while he ad­mits to us­ing the phrase, doesn’t think it had — or de­served to have — much of an im­pact on the pres­id­ent’s think­ing.

In real-life sports, a slam dunk isn’t even guar­an­teed. Just ask Mi­chael Jordan. If you really need a bas­ket­ball ana­logy for a fool-proof thing, maybe try a lay­up. But even that can go wrong. And the over­use of “slam dunks” in sports ana­lo­gies is really rather lazy. Slam dunks may be the most ob­vi­ous go-to, flashy com­pon­ent of bas­ket­ball. But they’re by no means the most beau­ti­ful or ex­cit­ing part of the game.

But, really, if an in­tel­li­gence “slam dunk” is what led the U.S. to be­lieve there were weapons of mass de­struc­tion in Ir­aq, wouldn’t we all be bet­ter served by, you know, no more slam dunks? Based on re­cent his­tory, you could really make the case that not hav­ing slam dunk in­tel­li­gence in Syr­ia is ac­tu­ally a good thing. Which is con­fus­ing! 

This needs to be stopped. But luck­ily, there’s a pretty simple way of know­ing when you’ve cor­rectly slam-dunked.

If after dunk­ing, you look like this …

CIA Dir­ect­or George Ten­et be­fore the Sept. 11 Com­mis­sion on Cap­it­ol Hill Wed­nes­day, April 14, 2004. (AP Photo/Charles Dhar­apak)

… then you’ve done something ter­ribly wrong.

What you’re look­ing for is something a bit more like this:

Ok­lahoma City Thun­der point guard Rus­sell West­brook after dunk­ing the ball against the San Ant­o­nio Spurs dur­ing the first half of Game 6 in the NBA bas­ket­ball West­ern Con­fer­ence fi­nals, Wed­nes­day, June 6, 2012, in Ok­lahoma City. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
What We're Following See More »
FRENCH IS A LAWYER, VETERAN
Kristol Recruiting National Review’s David French for Third-Party Run
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Two Republicans intimately familiar with Bill Kristol’s efforts to recruit an independent presidential candidate to challenge Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have told Bloomberg Politics that the person Kristol has in mind is David French -- whose name the editor of the Weekly Standard floated in the current issue of the magazine.

French is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the website of National Review, where French is a staff writer, he is a constitutional lawyer, a recipient of the Bronze Star, and an author of several books who lives in Columbia, Tenn., with his wife Nancy and three children."

Source:
CALIFORNIA VOTES IN A WEEK
Jerry Brown Backs Clinton
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed Hillary Clinton today, calling her "the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump." While praising Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign, Brown said "Clinton’s lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown – by millions of votes – that they want her as their nominee. ... This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun."

Source:
GLASS CEILING STILL HARD TO CRACK
Clinton Says Voters Still Hung Up on Gender
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a New York Magazine profile, Hillary Clinton said she still encounters misogyny at her own events: “‘I really admire you, I really like you, I just don’t know if I can vote for a woman to be president.’ I mean, they come to my events and then they say that to me.”

Source:
CHANGE WE CAN’T BELIEVE IN
Trump Vows Not to Change
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
Source:
BACKING OUT ON BERNIE
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
4 days ago
THE LATEST

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

×